PPG Industries, Inc. v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co.
273 F. Supp. 3d 558
W.D. Pa.2017Background
- PPG sued defendants after an ex-employee, Thomas Rukavina, was arrested for alleged theft of trade secrets and later died; PPG sought the decedent’s emails from Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo by subpoena.
- Robert Rukavina, Thomas’s brother and estate executor, consented to production of Thomas’s account materials; PPG argues that consent satisfies the Stored Communications Act (SCA) exception for disclosure.
- Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo refused to produce account contents, prompting PPG’s motions to compel production of emails under subpoenas.
- The dispute centers on whether the SCA permits a provider to disclose email contents in response to civil subpoenas when an executor has consented.
- The providers contend the SCA bars compelled disclosure by subpoena and that even with consent disclosure is discretionary, not mandatory; Yahoo also points to its Terms of Service disclaiming survivorship/transferability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil subpoenas authorize providers to disclose email contents under the SCA | Subpoenas plus executor’s consent transform to “lawful consent” under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(3) and thus require production | The SCA contains no civil-subpoena exception; providers cannot be compelled by civil subpoenas to disclose contents | Denied — civil subpoenas do not compel disclosure under the SCA |
| Whether executor’s consent binds providers to disclose under § 2702(b)(3) | Executor’s authority over decedent’s digital assets makes his consent “lawful consent” that authorizes production | Even if consent is lawful, § 2702(b)(3) is permissive (“may”), so providers have discretion to refuse | Court did not decide whether executor’s consent qualifies, because § 2702(b)(3) is discretionary and cannot be compelled |
| Whether the SCA requires providers to disclose when an exception applies | Consent should allow compelled production in civil discovery | § 2702 is titled “Voluntary disclosure”; mandatory disclosures are set out in § 2703, so § 2702 does not impose a duty to disclose | Held that § 2702 is permissive; providers may but need not disclose even with consent |
| Whether Yahoo’s Terms of Service prevent executor from consenting to produce account contents | Executor can control decedent’s digital assets under state law and consent to disclosure | Yahoo’s TOS contains a “No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability” clause, so the estate did not own the account contents to consent | Court observed Yahoo’s TOS likely precluded estate ownership, so executor could not consent to produce Yahoo emails (court would likely not order production) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Facebook, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (consent under SCA may permit but does not compel provider production)
- Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Assocs., Inc., 885 F. Supp. 2d 987 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (SCA contains no exception authorizing disclosure in response to civil discovery subpoenas)
- Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (Section 2702 lacks language authorizing disclosure pursuant to subpoena or court order)
- In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008) (statutory text of SCA does not include civil discovery subpoena exception)
- Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (no SCA exception for disclosure in civil discovery)
- United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1983) (interpretive principle: “may” in statute generally conveys discretion)